Criticism #1
 |
| Non related picture |
Today we are looking
at an editorial piece from the New York Times named “Politicians
for Sale” by their “EDITORAL BOARD” which consists of a 17 person brain trust
with a wide range of expertise. Also each piece produced is supposed to
represent all 17 voices on the board which makes it somewhat difficult to pin
down who wrote this specific piece. The topic was about the controversial ruling
in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, and the political
donator, and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon who is challenging the ruling
made by the Supreme Court. The challenge is to the overall cap on contributions
an individual may directly make to federal candidates, party committees, and political
action committees in a two year election cycle. This editorial is obviously intended
to be read by the middle class voters who are politically up to date with the
now rising issue of party contributions. The editorial is very informational
with at least half a dozen links to related information to better enhance the
readers experience. It’s not until the
end of the editorial that the piece is from the writer’s point of view. Overall
it is very informational and can seem one sideded but tries only once to make
an argument for both sides leaving the reader to side with the write with ease.
All in all it was a well written editorial that I would have overlooked if it wasn’t
for this assignment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html?_r=0
is the link you wanna look at to see what I’m babbling about
No comments:
Post a Comment